WRITTEN QUESTION E-0930/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Logging concession in the rainforest in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Date: 2002-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, conservation of resources, deforestation, degradation of the environment, environmental policy, forest conservation, forestry holding, natural resources

C 161 E/6

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

(2003/C 161 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/02

by Ralf Walter (PSE) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: EU subsidies for Rheinland-Pfalz in 2001

What EU funds did Rheinland-Pfalz receive in 2001, and under what measures, from:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF),

the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (cid:1) Guidance section,

the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (cid:1) Guarantee section,

the European Social Fund (ESF),

the EC research programmes,

the EC programmes for environment,

7. other EC programmes?

(2003/C 161 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1943/02

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: EU subsidies for Rhineland-Palatinate between 1999 and 2002

What European Union subsidies were paid to recipients in Rhineland-Palatinate between 1999 and 2002,
broken down by EU programme? Who were the recipients and what funding was made available under
cofinancing arrangements with the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate or the Federal Republic of Germany?

Supplementary joint answer
to Written Questions E-0725/02 and E-1943/02
given by Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Because of the length and detail of the answer, the Commission is transmitting it direct to the Honourable
Members and Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2003/C 161 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0930/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Logging concession in the rainforest in the Democratic Republic of Congo

In its answer to Written Question E-3498/01 (1), the Commission stated that a Zimbabwean company,
whose Board of Directors included military personnel, had succeeded in securing the most extensive
logging concession in the world.

Can the Commission supply me with the name of that company? Where is its registered office, and who
serves on its Board of Directors? Who are the shareholders of that company?

From an environmental point of view, how does the Commission assess the granting of that logging
concession? Will it take measures to make the contracting parties understand that the logging of such a
vast area is incompatible with a sustainable worldwide environmental policy?

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/7

Does this logging concession have any direct connection with the extraction of coltan? In other words, will
coltan be extracted from the area in which the logging takes place? If not, then what is the purpose behind
the clearance of such an enormous area?

Has the Commission already received the interim report of the six-member expert committee set up by the
UN Security Council? Has it been able to extract sufficient information therefrom for it to form an opinion
as to whether or not sanctions should be imposed on one or more of the parties involved in the (illegal)
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 27.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2002)

According to the information gathered by the Commission, the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-
Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party, along with the Zimbabwe Defence Force (ZDF), are reported to have
forged several large-scale financial deals involving Congolese timber and other natural resources.

A joint venture between the Zimbabwean military controlled OSLEG (Operation Sovereign Legitimacy,
formed after the start of the war in 1999) and the Kinshasa-based company Comiex (whose majority
shareholder was former President Laurent Desiré Kabila)
led to the creation of Socebo (cid:1) (Société
Congolaise pour l’Exploitation du Bois), according to a recent report on Zimbabwe’s commercial and
military interests in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

in absence of any sound national

The Commission considers that
forestry policy, a sustainable
management plan should be adopted and implemented in order to ensure the sustainability of the
Congolese logging concessions and limit the environmental damage of the exploitation. However the
logging concession has been established in the context of a war economy in a country like DRC where re-
establishing the rule of law will be long and difficult. At the moment, the Commission has no possibility to
take measures to influence the contracting parties.

The logging concession does not have any direct connection with coltan extraction as it is not supposed to
be present in the region of the logging concession. Tropical timber is itself a valuable resource on the
world market that is worth the extensive exploitation of a vast area.

At present there are still not compelling elements for orienting the action of Union towards imposing
sanctions on any of the parties involved in DRC’s resources exploitation and/or trade. The United Nations
Security Council on 19 December 2001 decided to postpone a decision on sanctions for another six
months. It gave mandate to the six-member panel of experts to further deepen investigations on the illegal
exploitation of natural resources in DRC. An interim report is expected by end of April 2002 and a final
report by end of August. After that, it is hoped to have definite elements on which the international
community will base its action.

(2003/C 161 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1431/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Commission position on the Ministry of Development’s forecasts for the arrival of high speed rail

travel in Galicia

On 30 April 2002, the Spanish press reported the Spanish Ministry of Development’s forecasts for the
implementation of the high-speed rail network with Spain, involving the linking of Madrid with Vallodolid,
Extremadura, Valencia, Cordoba, Asturias and Toledo, in addition to Barcelona, with no reference whatever
to a link with Galicia. What projects did the Spanish Government submit in this connection in order to
benefit from EU co-funding?